Search (230 results, page 2 of 12)

  • × theme_ss:"Informetrie"
  1. Su, Y.; Han, L.-F.: ¬A new literature growth model : variable exponential growth law of literature (1998) 0.02 
    0.02179542 = product of:
  0.04359084 = sum of:
    0.04359084 = product of:
      0.08718168 = sum of:
        0.08718168 = weight(_text_:22 in 3690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08718168 = score(doc=3690,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3690, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 5.1999 19:22:35
  2. Van der Veer Martens, B.: Do citation systems represent theories of truth? (2001) 0.02 
    0.02179542 = product of:
  0.04359084 = sum of:
    0.04359084 = product of:
      0.08718168 = sum of:
        0.08718168 = weight(_text_:22 in 3925) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08718168 = score(doc=3925,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3925, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3925)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 15:22:28
  3. Diodato, V.: Dictionary of bibliometrics (1994) 0.02 
    0.021576365 = product of:
  0.04315273 = sum of:
    0.04315273 = product of:
      0.08630546 = sum of:
        0.08630546 = weight(_text_:22 in 5666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08630546 = score(doc=5666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Journal of library and information science 22(1996) no.2, S.116-117 (L.C. Smith)
  4. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : I. Unified overview (1990) 0.02 
    0.021576365 = product of:
  0.04315273 = sum of:
    0.04315273 = product of:
      0.08630546 = sum of:
        0.08630546 = weight(_text_:22 in 6902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08630546 = score(doc=6902,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6902, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6902)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:29
  5. Bookstein, A.: Informetric distributions : II. Resilience to ambiguity (1990) 0.02 
    0.021576365 = product of:
  0.04315273 = sum of:
    0.04315273 = product of:
      0.08630546 = sum of:
        0.08630546 = weight(_text_:22 in 4689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08630546 = score(doc=4689,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4689, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4689)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 18:55:55
  6. Eisenhardt, O.; Ohly, P.: Quantitative Analyse und Suchstrategien (1981) 0.02 
    0.01949679 = product of:
  0.03899358 = sum of:
    0.03899358 = product of:
      0.07798716 = sum of:
        0.07798716 = weight(_text_:p in 36) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07798716 = score(doc=36,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.47670212 = fieldWeight in 36, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=36)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  7. Vinkler, P.: Quantity and impact through a single indicator (2013) 0.02 
    0.01949679 = product of:
  0.03899358 = sum of:
    0.03899358 = product of:
      0.07798716 = sum of:
        0.07798716 = weight(_text_:p in 753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07798716 = score(doc=753,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.47670212 = fieldWeight in 753, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  8. Mayr, P.; Scharnhorst, A.: Scientometrics and information retrieval - weak-links revitalized (2015) 0.02 
    0.01949679 = product of:
  0.03899358 = sum of:
    0.03899358 = product of:
      0.07798716 = sum of:
        0.07798716 = weight(_text_:p in 1688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07798716 = score(doc=1688,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.47670212 = fieldWeight in 1688, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1688)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  9. Lewison, G.: ¬The work of the Bibliometrics Research Group (City University) and associates (2005) 0.02 
    0.018494027 = product of:
  0.036988053 = sum of:
    0.036988053 = product of:
      0.07397611 = sum of:
        0.07397611 = weight(_text_:22 in 4890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07397611 = score(doc=4890,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4890, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2007 17:02:22
  10. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.02 
    0.018494027 = product of:
  0.036988053 = sum of:
    0.036988053 = product of:
      0.07397611 = sum of:
        0.07397611 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07397611 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
  11. Vinkler, P.: Application of the distribution of citations among publications in scientometric evaluations (2011) 0.02 
    0.018165063 = product of:
  0.036330126 = sum of:
    0.036330126 = product of:
      0.07266025 = sum of:
        0.07266025 = weight(_text_:p in 4769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07266025 = score(doc=4769,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.444141 = fieldWeight in 4769, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4769)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The ?-indicator (or ?v-indicator) of a set of journal papers is equal to a hundredth of the total number of citations obtained by the elite set of publications. The number of publications in the elite set P(?) is calculated as the square root of total papers. For greater sets the following equation is used: P(?v) = (10 log P) - 10, where P is the total number of publications. For sets comprising a single or several extreme frequently cited paper, the ?-index may be distorted. Therefore, a new indicator based on the distribution of citations is suggested. Accordingly, the publications are classified into citation categories, of which lower limits are given as 0, and (2n + 1), whereas the upper limits as 2n (n = 0, 2, 3, etc.). The citations distribution score (CDS) index is defined as the sum of weighted numbers of publications in the individual categories. The CDS-index increases logarithmically with the increasing number of citations. The citation distribution rate indicator is introduced by relating the actual CDS-index to the possible maximum. Several size-dependent and size-independent indicators were calculated. It has been concluded that relevant, already accepted scientometric indicators may validate novel indices through resulting in similar conclusions ("converging validation of indicators").
  12. Vinkler, P.: Relationships between the rate of scientific development and citations : the chance for citedness model (1996) 0.02 
    0.016247325 = product of:
  0.03249465 = sum of:
    0.03249465 = product of:
      0.0649893 = sum of:
        0.0649893 = weight(_text_:p in 5077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0649893 = score(doc=5077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 5077, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  13. Kretschmer, H.; Kretschmer, T.: Well-ordered collaboration structures of co-author pairs in journals (2006) 0.02 
    0.016247325 = product of:
  0.03249465 = sum of:
    0.03249465 = product of:
      0.0649893 = sum of:
        0.0649893 = weight(_text_:p in 25) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0649893 = score(doc=25,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 25, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=25)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In single-authored bibliographies only single scientist distribution can be found. But in multi-authored bibliographies single scientists distribution, pairs distribution, triples distribution, etc., can be presented. Whereas regarding Lotka's law single scientists P distribution (both in single-authored and in multi-authored bibliographies) is of interest, in the future pairs P, Q distribution, triples P, Q, R distribution, etc. should be considered Starting with pair distribution, the following question arises in the present paper: Is there also any regularity or well-ordered structure for the distribution of coauthor pairs in journals in analogy to Lotka's law for the distribution of single authors? Usually, in information science "laws " or "regularities " (for example Lotka's law) are mathematical descriptions of observed data inform of functions; however explanations of these phenomena are mostly missing. By contrast, in this paper the derivation of a formula for describing the distribution of the number of co-author pairs will be presented based on wellknown regularities in socio psychology or sociology in conjunction with the Gestalt theory as explanation for well-ordered collaboration structures and production of scientific literature, as well as derivations from Lotka's law. The assumed regularities for the distribution of co-author pairs in journals could be shown in the co-authorship data (1980-1998) of the journals Science, Nature, Proc Nat Acad Sci USA and Phys Rev B Condensed Matter.
    Source
    Vom Wandel der Wissensorganisation im Informationszeitalter: Festschrift für Walther Umstätter zum 65. Geburtstag, hrsg. von P. Hauke u. K. Umlauf
  14. Trevorrow, P.: ¬The use of H-index for the assessment of journals' performance will lead to shifts in editorial policies : a response (2012) 0.02 
    0.016247325 = product of:
  0.03249465 = sum of:
    0.03249465 = product of:
      0.0649893 = sum of:
        0.0649893 = weight(_text_:p in 49) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0649893 = score(doc=49,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 49, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=49)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  15. Walter, P.: Wie (un)zuverlässig ist die Forschung? (2017) 0.02 
    0.016247325 = product of:
  0.03249465 = sum of:
    0.03249465 = product of:
      0.0649893 = sum of:
        0.0649893 = weight(_text_:p in 3455) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0649893 = score(doc=3455,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 3455, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3455)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  16. Vezzani, A.; Coad, A.; Gkotsis, P.: Concerns about the consequences of patenting on scientometric research (2017) 0.02 
    0.016247325 = product of:
  0.03249465 = sum of:
    0.03249465 = product of:
      0.0649893 = sum of:
        0.0649893 = weight(_text_:p in 3744) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0649893 = score(doc=3744,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.39725178 = fieldWeight in 3744, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3744)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  17. Jepsen, E.T.; Seiden, P.; Ingwersen, P.; Björneborn, L.; Borlund, P.: Characteristics of scientific Web publications : preliminary data gathering and analysis (2004) 0.01 
    0.014070597 = product of:
  0.028141193 = sum of:
    0.028141193 = product of:
      0.056282386 = sum of:
        0.056282386 = weight(_text_:p in 3091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056282386 = score(doc=3091,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.34403014 = fieldWeight in 3091, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  18. Botting, N.; Dipper, L.; Hilari, K.: ¬The effect of social media promotion on academic article uptake (2017) 0.01 
    0.014070597 = product of:
  0.028141193 = sum of:
    0.028141193 = product of:
      0.056282386 = sum of:
        0.056282386 = weight(_text_:p in 3522) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056282386 = score(doc=3522,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.34403014 = fieldWeight in 3522, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3522)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Important emerging measures of academic impact are article download and citation rates. Yet little is known about the influences on these and ways in which academics might manage this approach to dissemination. Three groups of papers by academics in a center for speech-language-science (available through a university repository) were compared. The first group of target papers were blogged, and the blogs were systematically tweeted. The second group of connected control papers were nonblogged papers that we carefully matched for author, topic, and year of publication. The third group were papers by different staff members on a variety of topics-Unrelated Control Papers. The results suggest an effect of social media on download rate, which was limited not just to Target Papers but also generalized to Connected Control Papers. Unrelated Control Papers showed no increase over the same amount of time (main effect of time, F(1,27)?=?55.6, p?<?.001); Significant Group×Time Interaction, F(2,27)?=?7.9, p?=?.002). The effect on citation rates was less clear but followed the same trend. The only predictor of the 2015 citation rate was downloads after blogging (r?=?0.450, p?=?.012). These preliminary results suggest that promotion of academic articles via social media may enhance download and citation rate and that this has implications for impact strategies.
  19. Kudlow, P.; Dziadyk, D.B.; Rutledge, A.; Shachak, A.; Eysenbach, G.: ¬The citation advantage of promoted articles in a cross-publisher distribution platform : a 12-month randomized controlled trial (2020) 0.01 
    0.014070597 = product of:
  0.028141193 = sum of:
    0.028141193 = product of:
      0.056282386 = sum of:
        0.056282386 = weight(_text_:p in 5969) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056282386 = score(doc=5969,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16359726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.34403014 = fieldWeight in 5969, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5969)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    There is currently a paucity of evidence-based strategies that have been shown to increase citations of peer-reviewed articles following their publication. We conducted a 12-month randomized controlled trial to examine whether the promotion of article links in an online cross-publisher distribution platform (TrendMD) affects citations. In all, 3,200 articles published in 64 peer-reviewed journals across eight subject areas were block randomized at the subject level to either the TrendMD group (n = 1,600) or the control group (n = 1,600) of the study. Our primary outcome compares the mean citations of articles randomized to TrendMD versus control after 12 months. Articles randomized to TrendMD showed a 50% increase in mean citations relative to control at 12 months. The difference in mean citations at 12 months for articles randomized to TrendMD versus control was 5.06, 95% confidence interval [2.87, 7.25], was statistically significant (p?<?.001) and found in three of eight subject areas. At 6 months following publication, articles randomized to TrendMD showed a smaller, yet statistically significant (p = .005), 21% increase in mean citations, relative to control. To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial to demonstrate how an intervention can be used to increase citations of peer-reviewed articles after they have been published.
  20. Raan, A.F.J. van: Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators : research group indicator distributions and correlations (2006) 0.01 
    0.0130772535 = product of:
  0.026154507 = sum of:
    0.026154507 = product of:
      0.052309014 = sum of:
        0.052309014 = weight(_text_:22 in 5275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052309014 = score(doc=5275,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15933464 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045500398 = queryNorm
            0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 5275, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5275)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 7.2006 16:20:22

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 205
  • d 22
  • m 1
  • ro 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 222
  • el 4
  • m 3
  • s 3
  • r 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications